directory-dev mailing list archives

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alias cycle detection
> ---------------------
>
> There is an unsolved question about how we should detect Alias cycles. Right
> now, we check for cycles *before* they are created. The alternative would be
> to stop any search that could lead to an infinite loop.
That would slow down reads. The best is to stop this from happening
with write operations: meaning doing the computation to detect and
prevent the cycle then and there instead of exhausting the search
process to deal with such wicked constructs.
> A third - but unrealistic - solution would be to don't detect cycle, and
> process the search until we reach the time or size limit (in other words,
> it's up to the admin to avoid the creation of such cycle; Highly
> dangerous…).
Agreed - really dangerous.
> The problem with the first approach is that we can't anymore pass the VSLDAP
> tests. It's a major burden. Also most of the current servers support this
> feature.
Is there a VSLDAP test that allows for alias cycle creation? If so we
should be able to bring this up with the Open Group. This is
definitely a gray area in the protocol but it makes little sense to
create alias cycles. Alias chaining on the other hand is a different
story.
So let me ask once again since I know little about the VSLDAP tests:
do they allow alias chaining or alias loops? The two would be
different.
Alex